| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Questions about Freeh report

Daily Photo Galleries

Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

I read Dejan Kovacevic's sports column “Kovacevic: The Paternos' sad, squeaky reply” (Feb. 11) regarding the Paterno family's report. I have some questions for him.

Why does he think Mr. Freeh is right about Mr. Paterno when he was so wrong in the fiascos of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewell and numerous others? As Charles R. Smith wrote for in 2002, Freeh “oversaw the longest run of FBI public disasters in its entire history.”

The Penn State trustees knew where to get the report they needed. Why didn't they conduct a thorough analysis of the Freeh report before accepting it? Why were they so anxious to put this behind them? What were the true motives of some trustees?

Why did the Penn State president accept the outrageous NCAA sanctions without question? Please don't tell me it was because he was worried about the “death penalty.” NCAA President Mark Emmert and NCAA Executive Committee Chair Ed Ray each gave different answers regarding the fact that the “death penalty” was on the table, and that has never been explained.

I would appreciate getting answers to these questions, which no one wants to address.

Angeline Doyle


Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Emmert, Freeh share shame
  2. Growth’s real driver
  3. Not federal matter
  4. Appeasement then & now
  5. ‘Deflate-gate’ vs. King Day
  6. Why shale’s sustainable
  7. Hidden agenda
  8. Back & still liberal
  9. Worth looking for
  10. Too many PDs
  11. Bullying & free speech